How to fix CKM biggest issue

Ian McNicoll ian at
Wed Mar 11 09:40:24 EDT 2015

Hi Gustavo,

I think you raise a very important issue, and at key point where the new
Management Board is in a strong position to take a careful look at how to
move forward.

I see that Sebastian has responded to explain the upcoming changes to CKM
which will make broader community interaction much clearer.

I also wholly agree that we badly need to expand the Editorial group for
the international CKM. The constraints there have been largely about
resourcing, and of course in getting people trained up and comfortable in
taking on that role. Although the Industry Sprint has gone slower than we
had hoped, it has provided much-needed protected time for the current
Editors to get the publication process moving. Our priority still has to be
to get the green ticks up but I would hope we will soon be in a position to
expand the team and share some of the burden.

You are also correct that we need to make it much easier for people to
share archetypes and collaborate at an early stage, using the incubator
facility but we do have a challenge in coming up with some fair rules of
engagement, given that CKM, though a commercial tool, is provided
free-of-charge to the openEHR Foundation.

I don't think that it would be fair, either to Ocean, or to Ocean's other
paying customers, for people to use the international CKM for any local (or
indeed commercial ) projects they choose. We would also face the problem of
competing local and national archetypes, co-existing in the same space.

Philosophically I don't have a problem in moving to a more Wikipedia type
model but I think we are some way of being able to achieve this in terms of
effective governance or a funding model that would be commercially-viable
and sustainable (whoever supplies the tooling).

Coming back to the original issue around Editorial resource, a more liberal
approach to community uploads also puts more load on the Editors, in terms
of monitoring and advising which resources should be pulled in to Projects.
The worst thing that could happen is that due to lack of Editorial
resource, many useful incubated archetypes remain in that state for a
prolonged period

Let's continue the discussion. I think we need to start with looking at how
to expand and resource the Editorial team.



Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: ian at
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics
Director, openEHR Foundation
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 11 March 2015 at 09:54, Gustavo Bacelar <gbacelar at> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I would like to suggest some very important changes for governance model
> of CKM. As you all know, CKM is a keystone to openEHR, but its actual
> governance model is outdated and holds the development and inclusion of new
> archetypes.
> As long as I know there are only 2 main editors that can import any type
> of archetypes to CKM. I'm an editor too, but I can only import to
> Ophthalmology Project and some other Incubators. The inclusion of new
> archetypes can not depend on only 2-3 people. It is a huge constraint to
> the development of openEHR, we must have more main editors.
> What I propose is to follow a governance model similar to Wikipedia. It
> should be possible to anyone to submit archetypes, but these would be in a
> sandbox, which already exists: the Incubators. These would stimulate other
> participants of CKM to develop new archetypes and to improve them much
> faster. When an archetype is sufficiently mature, an editor would include
> it to public use.
> Kind regards
> --
> Gustavo Bacelar
> MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics
> Skype: gustavobacela
> ​r
> LinkedIn:
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list